Watching child pornography not an offence under IT Act: Karnataka HC
The court quashed proceedings against petitioner, stating that watching pornographic material does not meet the requirements to establish a violation of Section 67B
 "Watching child pornography not an offence under IT Act: Karnataka HC")
The Karnataka High Court has observed that merely watching child pornography online does not constitute an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing proceedings against a man booked under the IT Act.
Justice Nagaprasanna said, “The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in the considered view of the court, does not amount to publishing or transmitting material as required under Section 67B of the IT Act.”
The case was filed on the basis of a complaint filed by the Cyber, Economic, and Narcotics (CEN) police station. The complaint alleged that on March 23, 2022, between 3:50 pm and 4:40 pm, the accused viewed a website containing child pornography. The complaint was registered on May 3, 2023, nearly two months after the incident, citing an offence punishable under Section 67B of the IT Act.
The petitioner defended himself by admitting his addiction to pornography but emphasised that he never intended to distribute or circulate the material. The prosecution, however, argued that merely watching child pornography is a grave offence.
Section 67B of the IT Act specifically targets individuals who publish or transmit material depicting children in sexually explicit acts in electronic form.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted, “The essence of the provision is the act of publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts.”
The court concluded, “At best, as contended, the petitioner could be a porn addict who has watched pornographic material. Nothing beyond this is alleged against the petitioner. If the facts are pitted against the ingredients necessary to establish a violation of Section 67B of the IT Act, it becomes evident that further proceedings cannot be permitted as it would constitute an abuse of the legal process.”